Vade showed garbage. Totally unclassified skulls, not called homo erectus or homo sapiens. The one he showed from the phony TalkOrigins site, I blew out of the water as a total fake. I also blew out your phony Java Man transformed into a homo erectus. You, like the professional whores of evolution are just playing the bone game. Classifying and reclassifying bones to fit your theory with absolutely no scientific evidence for it.
And kindly, when you purport to refute my statements, refer to what you are refuting. I make enough posts here for you to answer them directly, not second hand.
No, you didn't. You followed the Creationist Arguments link from the TalkOrigins page already linked for you, lifted the creationist arguments . . .
Perhaps the most remarkable feature of this fossil is that it was found about sixty feet underground at the far end of a shaft in a lead and zinc mine. He was either mining lead and zinc himself or was in the mine shaft at a time when lead and zinc were being mined by other humans -- indicating a very high degree of civilization and technology. Not surprisingly, many evolutionists report that Rhodesian Man was found in a cave. While not an outright lie, one has to consider if calling a mine shaft a cave is not a crude attempt to minimize the technical abilities of ancient humans.. . . and ignored the refutations already sitting there.
There is no deception. As the original paper on Rhodesian Man (Woodward 1921) clearly states, the fossils were found in a cave, which was found in a mine. Lubenow's claim that the Rhodesian Man was mining lead and zinc is one of his more spectacular mistakes. No evolutionist has ever claimed that Rhodesian Man was mining. Why would they? The mine is of recent (19th century) origin, and Rhodesian Man was found in it along with remains of other animals (perhaps they were mining too?).Amusing and revealing that you would so transparently lift a discredited argument and then claim it as your own without credit to the hapless bozo you stole it from.
Considering I've never mentioned Java Man that would be quite a feat. Now, I did mention (and posted articles) that Homo Erectus may have survived on Java until about 50,000 years ago, but that does not mean I've linked that with Java Man. Your "lying for God" is going to get you into trouble time and again.